1) Gonzales played in an era of amateurs. And very few people played tennis back then compared to today. It is not something can be proud of.

Gonzales turned professional in late 1949. He was an amateur from 1947-1949. It was the professional game that Gonzales dominated for so long.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

2) Like I said above, he was undisputed world number one in a few years, and co-number 1 in the others.

Gonzales was never toppled as world number 1, so if you have to choose a single world number 1 from 1954-1961, it is Gonzales, IMO, despite strong challenges from players like Segura, Sedgman, Rosewall and Hoad, not to mention other good players like McGregor, Trabert, Anderson, Cooper, Olmedo, MacKay, Gimeno etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

Co-number 1 is a ridiculous word. It can only happen in an immature stage of tennis history. Too many thing about Gonzales are myths, like his serve's speed. We do not know for sure.

I have the Gonzales vs. Pasarell match from 1969 Wimbledon on DVD, and even at 41 years of age, his serve is quite brilliant. It would have been a lot better during his prime when he was the dominant player in the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

So, because too many things about Gonzales are myth, he lives in a cloud that protects him from other modern greats.

How is it a myth? He was the best player for 8 years on the pro tour, and beat all the newly turned professionals, who had been top amateurs, players like Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Anderson, Cooper, Olmedo. Trabert and Cooper, for example, won 3 out of 4 majors in their last year as an amateur, and then got annihilated by Gonzales on the world pro tour, where Gonzales won 74-27 against Trabert in 1956, and a combined 34-0 against Cooper and Anderson in 1959.

Gonzales was in another league to the top amateurs, and only Hoad was a serious challenger straight away. It even took Rosewall until the early 1960s, by which time Gonzales was in his early 30s and had dominated the pro game for years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

That also happens with every pre-open players. They are living in the cloud. Wow, they won too many tournaments (Laver won 199, I guess) while Federer can not pass 90 mark. Wow, they won too many majors (Laver 19, Rosewall 23, I guess). For the God's sake, how many of them are mickey mouse with very few participant? Should we count 1 pro slam in 1967 equal a today's slam? I guess NOT.

Laver won 200 tournaments. The only big tournament he never won was the WCT Dallas tournament, finishing runner-up to Rosewall in both 1971 and 1972. And the reason Federer cannot match Laver for number of tournaments won is mostly because of the number of hardcourt tournaments in modern tennis, which shorten careers. In Laver's time, grass, clay, carpet and wood predominated by some margin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

It is funny. If my memory sever well, there are many threads here discussing who was the best player of X year, like this or this. And now you try to persuade me that you do not have any disputes. I dont think it will work.

My list is my list of who I think are the best players per year. I don't say it's absolute truth, just my opinion. Even in the open era, there are disputes. Do you agree with the ATP computer that Connors was number 1 in 1975, 1977 and 1978, that McEnroe was number 1 in 1982, and that Lendl was number 1 in 1989? Because I sure don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonicare

More nostalgic nonsense. No one cares how you rank them. We need to know how they were ranked by the official bodies. I expect you to avoid this question because it will expose your nonsensical argument..

So do you agree with the ATP computer regarding the best players of 1975, 1977, 1978, 1982 and 1989?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonicare

The idea that a 5 foot 10 Laver could compete with today's players even if he was born in this era is ridiculous. His career would be slightly better than Ferrer's because he has the advantage of being a lefty. Would not win a slam GAURANTEED

That is all speculation. You could just as easily say that Federer doesn't stand a chance in the era of wooden racquets, no tiebreaks and no sitdowns at the change of ends against Laver. No modern player could just play the game that they do today with 1960s equipment, because wooden racquets didn't have the power to dictate from the baseline with the authority and depth of today's game. You had to go into the net a lot back then.

You say Laver couldn't cope in today's game, but you don't seem to ask about Federer in Laver's day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF

Your list is flaw because there are two tours competing at that time. Had both tours combined which the field would be stronger, it makes a world of difference.

And? That doesn't mean that the players were worse. In Gonzales' time, the best players were the professionals, and he was playing against these top players all the time. Imagine Federer always playing against 15 of the top 20 players, instead of often playing against players way below that ranking. Playing against players of such high calibre on a very regular basis, like the old pros did, will make you a better player.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF

You also double counting with 2 players/per year earning the best player. Had the open-era had two tours and 2 players gets to be number one in the world, Fed/Nadal would earn more year at #1. Nadal would have 6 years end #1(with would include 2005, 06, 07, 09, 11) had Fed and Nole was playing in a separate tour.

I am not. Gonzales was the best player in the world when he was the best professional. In 1949, when Gonzales was the best amateur player, the best player in the world was Jack Kramer.

I personally believe the best professional player was always better than the best amateur player in the years I've listed, apart from 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1932 and 1933, when the best amateur player was the best player in the world. In the 1930s, the gap between the top professionals and the top amateurs was very close, but after the late 1940s, the top professionals had a clear lead over the top amateurs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonicare

Agreed. I asked Mustard about this in another thread but he completely ignored me.

I will ask again

If you are comfortable with having 2 tours and not conceding that it makes it easier to compete in 2 tours, then please do tell how many 3.5 tournaments can one win today to equal to a grandslam on the ATP tour?

What is 3.5 tournaments?

Quote:

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Timely list, Mustard, but i'm fairly certain the OP is likely another alternate account of a TW regular who needs to make yet another argument leading to Federer being crowned some sort of "GOAT," when he never earned that distinction, and never will (his lack of ability to win the Grand Slam at the top of it all).

If some were so sure of Federer's alleged status, there would no need to launch threads like this over and over and over again.

Yeah, it's annoying. Unless one says that Federer is the undisputed GOAT, one gets criticised. Unfortunately for them, tennis history is far too complicated for that, and there are stats where Federer is behind. Federer is not the only GOAT candidate, but one of many.

I read too many threads and too many posts here about how great Pre-open era and players of that period were. It is becoming ridiculous for many reasons. I will tell you why.

1) Everthing in pre-open era is like a myth. Nothing real about it. For example: Pancho Gonzales and Laver are called "co-number 1" with other players for many years. It is REALLY ridiculous and can only happen in an immature stage of tennis history. This year Murray and Federer and Djokovic are very close in term of winning big titles, but in the end Novak Djokovic is THE world number 1. If this scenario happened in the past, they would be treated like co-number 1.

2) Pre-open era can not be compared with open era, especially with the era from 90's to now. Why? Because pre-open era' standard was too low.
Tennis was not a global sport back then. We have a small pool of tennis players whom played against other regularly. And some of them won more than others. It was meaningless, or at least not meaning much. How many of tournament they won have only 8 men, 10 men, 14 men? Or even less? And we are counting those tournaments as the same with tournaments today? Grand Slam in the past as the same with grand slam today? No way in h e l l.

3) There are too much changes in tennis from 19th century to today. In a better way, I must say. From the beginning to 1968, it was like a childish-period. There were too many errors in the system and it made player look greater than they actually were. From 1968 to the end of 80's tennis world was organized better but there were still many holes in that system. 90's till now is good. Of course the system is not flawless. But we have no myth anymore.

I dont say players in the past were not great. Of course they were great. But like TMF points out, in the forum like this players like Hoad, Gonzales, Laver are in the fix position compared to Federer. Federer can win 5 more slams and they are still in the fix position. The biggest weapon old timer use to defend Gonzales or Laver is "IF bla bla...". If = myth = meaningless. Pre-open era is immature stage of tennis history. And anything achieved in that stage can not be treated as the same with today's achievement. Period.

Well, I am glad you settled all those silly debates we've been having for years.

Case closed.

__________________
In the end, the aggressive all-court player always has the advantage against a power-bashing baseliner.

1) Gonzales played in an era of amateurs. And very few people played tennis back then compared to today. It is not something can be proud of.
2) Like I said above, he was undisputed world number one in a few years, and co-number 1 in the others. Co-number 1 is a ridiculous word. It can only happen in an immature stage of tennis history. Too many thing about Gonzales are myths, like his serve's speed. We do not know for sure.

So, because too many things about Gonzales are myth, he lives in a cloud that protects him from other modern greats. That also happens with every pre-open players. They are living in the cloud. Wow, they won too many tournaments (Laver won 199, I guess) while Federer can not pass 90 mark. Wow, they won too many majors (Laver 19, Rosewall 23, I guess). For the God's sake, how many of them are mickey mouse with very few participant? Should we count 1 pro slam in 1967 equal a today's slam? I guess NOT.

Gonzalez played in an amateur era AND in a pro era.

Co.-No.1 players are also possible in current times. What is immature there?

Gonzales turned professional in late 1949. He was an amateur from 1947-1949. It was the professional game that Gonzales dominated for so long.

Gonzales was never toppled as world number 1, so if you have to choose a single world number 1 from 1954-1961, it is Gonzales, IMO, despite strong challenges from players like Segura, Sedgman, Rosewall and Hoad, not to mention other good players like McGregor, Trabert, Anderson, Cooper, Olmedo, MacKay, Gimeno etc.

I have the Gonzales vs. Pasarell match from 1969 Wimbledon on DVD, and even at 41 years of age, his serve is quite brilliant. It would have been a lot better during his prime when he was the dominant player in the world.

How is it a myth? He was the best player for 8 years on the pro tour, and beat all the newly turned professionals, who had been top amateurs, players like Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Anderson, Cooper, Olmedo. Trabert and Cooper, for example, won 3 out of 4 majors in their last year as an amateur, and then got annihilated by Gonzales on the world pro tour, where Gonzales won 74-27 against Trabert in 1956, and a combined 34-0 against Cooper and Anderson in 1959.

Gonzales was in another league to the top amateurs, and only Hoad was a serious challenger straight away. It even took Rosewall until the early 1960s, by which time Gonzales was in his early 30s and had dominated the pro game for years.

Laver won 200 tournaments. The only big tournament he never won was the WCT Dallas tournament, finishing runner-up to Rosewall in both 1971 and 1972. And the reason Federer cannot match Laver for number of tournaments won is mostly because of the number of hardcourt tournaments in modern tennis, which shorten careers. In Laver's time, grass, clay, carpet and wood predominated by some margin.

My list is my list of who I think are the best players per year. I don't say it's absolute truth, just my opinion. Even in the open era, there are disputes. Do you agree with the ATP computer that Connors was number 1 in 1975, 1977 and 1978, that McEnroe was number 1 in 1982, and that Lendl was number 1 in 1989? Because I sure don't.

So do you agree with the ATP computer regarding the best players of 1975, 1977, 1978, 1982 and 1989?

That is all speculation. You could just as easily say that Federer doesn't stand a chance in the era of wooden racquets, no tiebreaks and no sitdowns at the change of ends against Laver. No modern player could just play the game that they do today with 1960s equipment, because wooden racquets didn't have the power to dictate from the baseline with the authority and depth of today's game. You had to go into the net a lot back then.

You say Laver couldn't cope in today's game, but you don't seem to ask about Federer in Laver's day.

And? That doesn't mean that the players were worse. In Gonzales' time, the best players were the professionals, and he was playing against these top players all the time. Imagine Federer always playing against 15 of the top 20 players, instead of often playing against players way below that ranking. Playing against players of such high calibre on a very regular basis, like the old pros did, will make you a better player.

I am not. Gonzales was the best player in the world when he was the best professional. In 1949, when Gonzales was the best amateur player, the best player in the world was Jack Kramer.

I personally believe the best professional player was always better than the best amateur player in the years I've listed, apart from 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1932 and 1933, when the best amateur player was the best player in the world. In the 1930s, the gap between the top professionals and the top amateurs was very close, but after the late 1940s, the top professionals had a clear lead over the top amateurs.

What is 3.5 tournaments?

Yeah, it's annoying. Unless one says that Federer is the undisputed GOAT, one gets criticised. Unfortunately for them, tennis history is far too complicated for that, and there are stats where Federer is behind. Federer is not the only GOAT candidate, but one of many.

Well done, Mustard, in giving good arguments to contradict our younger friends who defend Federer in an exaggerating way.

I think it was pc1 who once proved that some of Federer's statistics are NOT great:majors won out of majors played and so on.

Gonzales turned professional in late 1949. He was an amateur from 1947-1949. It was the professional game that Gonzales dominated for so long.
Gonzales was never toppled as world number 1, so if you have to choose a single world number 1 from 1954-1961, it is Gonzales, IMO, despite strong challenges from players like Segura, Sedgman, Rosewall and Hoad, not to mention other good players like McGregor, Trabert, Anderson, Cooper, Olmedo, MacKay, Gimeno etc.

Ok in this page Hoodjem said Gonzales has "only" 6 years ending number 1 (1952, 1954-1957 and 1958 co-number 1 with Sedgman). It does not sound better than Sampras, right?

So, he had 6 or 8 years ending number 1? I want to ask. Because it seems even old times can not decide what really happen in the pre-open era.
Here is the fact: In 1960, Gonzales was called co-number 1, equally to Ken Rosewall. But that year Gonzales did not win anything important and he played only few months. He retired in May 1960 (of course he came back for money). A player retired in May called co-number 1 is a really embarrassment for pre-open era.

In the professional tour he had something like that: he played 100 matches with Tony Trabert in 1956 alone, 87 matches with Lew Hoad in 1958 alone, 80 matches with Rosewall in 1957,... What conclusion we can get from such information? He played his entire tour life with a so small bunch of tennis players. Yes he beat them. Yes he was better than them all. But number of his opponent was so small that it does not mean anything. You spent one whole year just to play with one, two, three guys. Why this thing could happen? Because no one played tennis back then. That is it. Pancho Gonzales was the undisputed king of handicap tennis world that should not be mentioned in the same league with today's kings.
The same thing happens with every professional player. They won every thing because...no one else played tennis beside them. "No one" is a strong word but you got what I mean.

Quote:

Laver won 200 tournaments. The only big tournament he never won was the WCT Dallas tournament, finishing runner-up to Rosewall in both 1971 and 1972. And the reason Federer cannot match Laver for number of tournaments won is mostly because of the number of hardcourt tournaments in modern tennis, which shorten careers. In Laver's time, grass, clay, carpet and wood predominated by some margin.

Laver is a interesting case. No, the reason why Laver won so much because there were so much small tournaments in his era, tournament with 4- 8 participants. In wiki I saw this article:
Rod Laver won: 1968, NTL 4 man event Sao Paulo, Brazil; 1968, Sao Paulo, Brazil (4-man round robin), 1971, CBS Classic (4-man), Hilton Head, South Carolina, U.S...
Federer is unlucky guy, born at the wrong time. How lucky Laver was, he won a bunch of ridiculously small tournaments that he could be so proud of.

Mustard, you are the only one reply me carefully so I will do the same with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard

My list is my list of who I think are the best players per year. I don't say it's absolute truth, just my opinion. Even in the open era, there are disputes. Do you agree with the ATP computer that Connors was number 1 in 1975, 1977 and 1978, that McEnroe was number 1 in 1982, and that Lendl was number 1 in 1989? Because I sure don't.

So do you agree with the ATP computer regarding the best players of 1975, 1977, 1978, 1982 and 1989?

Yes, there were many holes in tennis world until 90s like I said before. Computer ranking was not available till 1973 and we do not have reliable ranking until recent time. That's why I said tennis has evolved from immature stage to mature stage as now. In 70s and 80s tennis world was still finding the way to measure greatness.

Quote:

That is all speculation. You could just as easily say that Federer doesn't stand a chance in the era of wooden racquets, no tiebreaks and no sitdowns at the change of ends against Laver. No modern player could just play the game that they do today with 1960s equipment, because wooden racquets didn't have the power to dictate from the baseline with the authority and depth of today's game. You had to go into the net a lot back then.

You say Laver couldn't cope in today's game, but you don't seem to ask about Federer in Laver's day.

I do not say anything like that. What I said is Laver won a bunch of small tournaments which make him looking greater than he actually was. You can not cite his number of tournaments won or slam won to promote him as greatest player of all time. You just can not.

Quote:

Yeah, it's annoying. Unless one says that Federer is the undisputed GOAT, one gets criticised. Unfortunately for them, tennis history is far too complicated for that, and there are stats where Federer is behind. Federer is not the only GOAT candidate, but one of many.

You feel annoying, do I NOT feel annoying as well? You guys devalue Federer greatness for ridiculous reasons like Gonzales was world best player in 8 years, Laver won 2 grand slam and 200 tournaments, Rosewall won 23 majors... What is that? They are all myths. Gonzales was NOT world best palyer in 8 years, so was Laver. Laver won 200 small tournament and many "majors" playing just 3 matches. And Rosewall, well, he seem not be top candidate so I will let him alone.

Ok in this page Hoodjem said Gonzales has "only" 6 years ending number 1 (1952, 1954-1957 and 1958 co-number 1 with Sedgman). It does not sound better than Sampras, right?

So, he had 6 or 8 years ending number 1? I want to ask. Because it seems even old times can not decide what really happen in the pre-open era.
Here is the fact: In 1960, Gonzales was called co-number 1, equally to Ken Rosewall. But that year Gonzales did not win anything important and he played only few months. He retired in May 1960 (of course he came back for money). A player retired in May called co-number 1 is a really embarrassment for pre-open era.

In the professional tour he had something like that: he played 100 matches with Tony Trabert in 1956 alone, 87 matches with Lew Hoad in 1958 alone, 80 matches with Rosewall in 1957,... What conclusion we can get from such information? He played his entire tour life with a so small bunch of tennis players. Yes he beat them. Yes he was better than them all. But number of his opponent was so small that it does not mean anything. You spent one whole year just to play with one, two, three guys. Why this thing could happen? Because no one played tennis back then. That is it. Pancho Gonzales was the undisputed king of handicap tennis world that should not be mentioned in the same league with today's kings.
The same thing happens with every professional player. They won every thing because...no one else played tennis beside them. "No one" is a strong word but you got what I mean.

Laver is a interesting case. No, the reason why Laver won so much because there were so much small tournaments in his era, tournament with 4- 8 participants. In wiki I saw this article:
Rod Laver won: 1968, NTL 4 man event Sao Paulo, Brazil; 1968, Sao Paulo, Brazil (4-man round robin), 1971, CBS Classic (4-man), Hilton Head, South Carolina, U.S...
Federer is unlucky guy, born at the wrong time. How lucky Laver was, he won a bunch of ridiculously small tournaments that he could be so proud of.

No one played tennis then? That's the most ignorant post I have read since a long time!

Co.-No.1 players are also possible in current times. What is immature there?

Not in today rankings. That flaw can only happen in eras which more players want to attend exhibition tournaments than grand slam. And winning grand slam did not give you much more point than winning, lets say: Dallas tournament.

NGM bravo. I think you raise some great points that are stirring up this side of the forum. Some members over here make the pre open era and the anything pre-modern to be something of "mythical proportions," when it cannot measure up to the world tennis landscape of today

No one played tennis then? That's the most ignorant post I have read since a long time!

Please, I already said that it is strong word. You know what I mean. I do not know there were how many people lived by playing tennis back then, but the number must be a pretty small (if you have a reliable number, let me know). Here is a article I find out about the evolution of tennis. http://www.cigaraficionado.com/webfe...ryone_7499/p/1

Quote:

It wasn't always that way. Prior to the emergence of open tennis in 1968, the sport was almost exclusively an amateur game in the United States--and everywhere else. Far from being a multimillion dollar business, tennis originally served as a refined pastime for the well-to-do. From the time Major Walter Wingfield developed lawn tennis in Britain in 1874, the game was viewed as a social event for gentlemen and ladies, and country clubs such as the Newport Casino in Rhode Island, Southampton on Long Island and the Longwood Cricket Club outside of Boston hosted tournaments to coincide with the summer social season. Even when the game opened up to the middle class in the decades between the two world wars, the major tournaments remained the province of the private tennis clubs. Indeed, the U.S. championships (the precursor to the Open) were contested at private clubs until 1978, primarily at Newport, the Philadelphia Cricket Club and the West Side Tennis Club in Forest Hills, New York. Before the advent of open tennis, with its anything goes attitude, spectators generally were drawn from the highest levels of society. A genteel atmosphere prevailed at tournaments: men and women dressed formally, and splendid shots were rewarded with polite applause. Tank tops and shorts? Booing? Player tantrums? Not a chance. Civility would reign until the 1970s, when stars like Ilie Nastase, Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe shattered all notions of propriety.

and

Quote:

While we take the commercialism and professionalism of today's game for granted, the idea was anathema to most of the amateur officials who governed the sport in America, England, Australia and other major tennis-playing nations from the 1920s to the 1960s. To them, tennis was never intended to be a livelihood; players were expected to play for only a few months of the year and then return to their profession or business. Professional competitors had no place in this world of amateur tennis, and the handful who gamely made a go of it beginning after the First World War were treated as pariahs by the tennis establishment. Pros could not play in the long-standing amateur tournaments, including the four Grand Slam events--Wimbledon and the U.S., French and Australian championships--and the Davis Cup.

NGM bravo. I think you raise some great points that are stirring up this side of the forum. Some members over here make the pre open era and the anything pre-modern to be something of "mythical proportions," when it cannot measure up to the world tennis landscape of today

I always try to give full credit to the legends of the past, so i find fair and even enjoyable reading some posterd argue in favor of them. I consider Federer the best (and most accomplished) player ever. I concede that other players resumees are astonishing also (in my case i think that only Laver and Gonzalez are in the same league, sligthly below but in the same league nonetheless). But the problem with some old posters is that they take numbers and do not analyze them carefully. For example it has been said numerous times around here that Laver has won 200 tournaments, that is a fact, but you can`t use that number to favour Laver over Federer to name someone. How many of those tournaments had a 4-8 man field??? As another poster said it is just an apples to orange comparison. It would take a modern player to win 10 tournaments a year during a 20 years career, it is just absurd to think about that given the conditions today. The game is getting more physical year after year at exponential rates, the percentage of hardcourt tournaments today is much bigger than the past with the obvius negative results on the player`s joints, the prize money and endorsements the top players are earning allow them to play less tournaments, etc. So the sheer number of tournaments won isn`t a valid point to bring up in favour of the old players. On the other hand i believe that Federer majors records being an amazing feat as they are (majors won, consecutive finals, consecutive semifinals, etc), only apply 100% when comparing him with players of the modern eras, that is why i think of him as the clear GOAT of the open era and my best choice for an all time GOAT but i admit that given the changes the game has suffered is quite debatable.
So the next time you try to argue in favour of player

Ok in this page Hoodjem said Gonzales has "only" 6 years ending number 1 (1952, 1954-1957 and 1958 co-number 1 with Sedgman). It does not sound better than Sampras, right?

Well, that's hoodjem's list, not mine. Gonzales kept winning the world pro tours right up until his initial retirement at the end of 1961, and he was never toppled, even if he was seriously challenged.

1954: Gonzales becomes best player in the world, wins US Pro for the second year in a row. Wins a 4-man world pro tour against Sedgman, Segura and Budge.

1955: Gonzales clearly the world's best player, wins US Pro title for the third year in a row.

1956: Probably Gonzales' most dominant year ever, wins 74-27 in the world pro tour against Trabert, wins the Wembley Pro for the fourth time, the US Pro for the fourth time and the inaugural Tournament of Champions, as well as finishing runner-up of the French Pro.

1957: Gonzales again clearly the world's best player, wins 50-26 against Rosewall in the world pro tour, wins the US Pro for the fifth year in a row and the Tournament of Champions for the second year in a row.

1958: Gonzales has a hardfought 51-36 win over Hoad on their world pro tour, gets a serious challenge from Sedgman on the tournament scene, but Gonzales still wins his sixth US Pro title in a row and his third Tournament of Champions in a row.

1959: A very close year between Gonzales and Hoad. Gonzales wins the 4-man world pro tour against Hoad, Cooper and Anderson. Although Hoad won more direct matches against Gonzales on that tour (15-13), Gonzales was unbeaten against Cooper and Anderson (going 34-0). Gonzales thrashes Hoad to win his seventh US Pro title in a row, but Hoad avenges this by beating Gonzales in the final of the Tournament of Champions, in what was Hoad's finest hour. Gonzales wasn't toppled as the world's best, though.

1960: Gonzales is finally free of his pro contract with Kramer, which had lasted for 7 years, and hardly plays any tournaments this year. However, Gonzales dominates the 4-man world pro tour against Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo.

1961: Gonzales wins the US Pro title for the eighth time, and wins the world pro tour against Gimeno, Hoad, MacKay, Olmedo, Buchholz and Sedgman. Rosewall was clearly doing increasingly well on the tournament scene, however. Gonzales retires from tennis at the end of 1961, and doesn't return until 18 months later, for a terrible loss at the 1963 US Pro against Olmedo. Gonzales then returned to the pro tour for a full-time schedule in 1964.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

So, he had 6 or 8 years ending number 1? I want to ask. Because it seems even old times can not decide what really happen in the pre-open era.

I have Gonzales as the best player in 8 calendar years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

Here is the fact: In 1960, Gonzales was called co-number 1, equally to Ken Rosewall. But that year Gonzales did not win anything important and he played only few months. He retired in May 1960 (of course he came back for money). A player retired in May called co-number 1 is a really embarrassment for pre-open era.

The world pro tours were even bigger than the pro majors back then, and Gonzales only lost the 1950 version against Kramer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

In the professional tour he had something like that: he played 100 matches with Tony Trabert in 1956 alone, 87 matches with Lew Hoad in 1958 alone, 80 matches with Rosewall in 1957,... What conclusion we can get from such information?

That Gonzales utterly dominated the newly turned professionals who had been the best amateur players. Have a look at how great Trabert's 1955 was on the amateur tour, yet he was crushed by Gonzales. Better still, look at Cooper's 1958 on the amateur tour, for an even bigger crushing by Gonzales in the pros.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

He played his entire tour life with a so small bunch of tennis players. Yes he beat them. Yes he was better than them all. But number of his opponent was so small that it does not mean anything.

That "small number" were the best players in the world. Let's take 1954, for example, the best players in the world were Gonzales, Sedgman and Segura, not Drobny, Trabert and Rose. The professional game was where the big boys played.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

You spent one whole year just to play with one, two, three guys. Why this thing could happen? Because no one played tennis back then. That is it. Pancho Gonzales was the undisputed king of handicap tennis world that should not be mentioned in the same league with today's kings.
The same thing happens with every professional player. They won every thing because...no one else played tennis beside them. "No one" is a strong word but you got what I mean.

Imagine if Federer played Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Tsonga all year, and never a player outside of the current top 15-20. Would that make him a weak player? In the 1950s, the best amateur players turned professional and would be pitted against the ultimate competition. You had to improve considerably to survive on the pro tour. Laver said in early 1963, "I thought Hoad was good, but Rosewall is even better. I am going to have to learn how to play tennis all over again if I am going to compete with them". And this came from the man who had won the Grand Slam in the amateurs in 1962.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

Laver is a interesting case. No, the reason why Laver won so much because there were so much small tournaments in his era, tournament with 4- 8 participants. In wiki I saw this article:
Rod Laver won: 1968, NTL 4 man event Sao Paulo, Brazil; 1968, Sao Paulo, Brazil (4-man round robin), 1971, CBS Classic (4-man), Hilton Head, South Carolina, U.S...
Federer is unlucky guy, born at the wrong time. How lucky Laver was, he won a bunch of ridiculously small tournaments that he could be so proud of.

Laver won all sorts of tournaments, from small ones to the biggest ones. He played relentlessly, year after year after year. Like I said in my previous post, Federer can't hope to match this activity due to the number of hardcourt tournaments he's played over the years. Hardcourts shorten careers. That is the single biggest reason as to why players can't play on the tour into their 40s, anymore. Heck, some struggle to even make it into their 30s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

Yes, there were many holes in tennis world until 90s like I said before. Computer ranking was not available till 1973 and we do not have reliable ranking until recent time. That's why I said tennis has evolved from immature stage to mature stage as now. In 70s and 80s tennis world was still finding the way to measure greatness.

That doesn't prove how good or bad players of past eras were. Players like Wilding, Tilden, Vines, Kramer, Gonzales and Laver were dominant players for many years. This doesn't become "myth" just because there were no official world rankings until 1973.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

I do not say anything like that. What I said is Laver won a bunch of small tournaments which make him looking greater than he actually was. You can not cite his number of tournaments won or slam won to promote him as greatest player of all time. You just can not.

Like I said before, Laver won tournaments of all sizes, as an amateur, as a pre-open era professional, and as an open era professional. You highlighting and focusing on the smaller tournaments doesn't change this fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

You feel annoying, do I NOT feel annoying as well? You guys devalue Federer greatness for ridiculous reasons like Gonzales was world best player in 8 years, Laver won 2 grand slam and 200 tournaments, Rosewall won 23 majors...

Gonzales was the best player in the world for 8 years
Laver did win 200 tournaments
Rosewall did win 23 majors (4 amateur, 15 professional, 4 open)

I realise that these facts are inconvenient to those with a "Federer is GOAT" agenda, but facts are facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM

What is that? They are all myths. Gonzales was NOT world best palyer in 8 years, so was Laver. Laver won 200 small tournament and many "majors" playing just 3 matches. And Rosewall, well, he seem not be top candidate so I will let him alone.

No, they are not myths, but the facts, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Try researching tennis history, sometime, and get rid of the clear pro-Federer biases. And LOL at the suggestion that Laver won 200 small tournaments. Laver was the best player in the world for 7 years, by the way. Are you going to call this a "myth" too?

And THIS is the reason Ladies and Gentleman is why we cannot compare Eras. Yes the competition was significantly lower back then with few participants and it was a lot easier! But thats not Laver's fault, its not Gonzales's fault! They played with what competition they had! its not like they got to choose, so their wins should count but at the same time they didnt have nearly the physicality and the work it takes to win the game today!! Since its become A LOT tougher! So thats why each era has to be respected and taken in its own sense. you cant compare because over a period of time things have changed. Will the Laver of 60's win a slam in today's game?? Ofcourse not!! But If he were a player of today he'd be putting hours into the gym and training like any other player today! So we should be thankful to guys like Laver and Gonzales and Tilden and lacoste who helped shape the game and inspire more people to come and play just like Federer and Nadal are doing today rather than comparing them because they played in two different worlds!!

Why do you say it is tougher today? Today's top professional players have financial security, can sit down at the change of ends, don't have to play injured, travel around in thunderbirds and stay in gyms and cheap motels.

What's clearly harder today is the media coverage, and the need for constant pressers with the players. The pros of the pre-open era just wanted more media coverage.